Jamil Jaffer, who previously worked at the Justice Department’s National Security Division and as counsel to Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, said presidents also usually provide a rationale for declassification or demonstrate that by showing a public need to release the information.
Trump didn’t appear to take these steps.
“You didn’t execute a document that showed the declassification. You didn’t tell somebody you declassified them. You didn’t put them out in public. … They still have classified markings on the box, you didn’t cross it out and initial it. You didn’t appear to do anything, so what’s the proof that you declassified them?” Jaffer said.
“What’s the evidence to suggest you declassified them other than your say so now after the fact now that you’re being investigated for having improperly retained classified materials?” he added.
“Constructive possession” is a new one on me, but it makes sense – particularly here where the prime suspect you’re dealing with has a habit of throwing anyone and everyone under the bus to escape the consequences of his malfeasance. And you can be assured that all those folks thrown under the bus are people that he barely knew and doesn’t even remember, and of course Trumpie personally knew nothing about the boxes of documents. Except that his personal passports were found in the crime scene. Delicious!
It would be beautifully ironic if part of Trumpie’s undoing was his complete inability to keep his blathering pie-hole shut. The fact that nearly everything that comes out of it can be shown in court to have been a self-serving lie is a bonus!
“As you can see, the passports with the documents show provenance, that these were in Mr. Trump’s personal possession.”
“Those aren’t my passports! You just put fake passports with my name on them with the documents!”
“Sir, with all due respect, you publicly accused the FBI of stealing your passports.”
“…Dammit.”
And when you’re the President of the United States, you should probably refrain from giving schoolyard insults to everyone who says something you don’t like, broadcasting it to the world. Or promote every ridiculous conspiracy theory that catches your fancy. Or give a speech in front of cameras telling a mob to attack the capitol building.
“The passports were PLANTED there BY the corrupt deep state FBI and the pictures were Photoshopped by Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!”
That Trump asserted the passports were “stolen” from him is a Nothingburger.
That Trump confirmed they were his passports that were seized by the FBI and subsequently returned to him (before he even asked for them, apparently) is a Somethingburger, because it establishes his possession of them, together with the classified documents with which they were evidently stored. It was very helpful of Trump to confirm this publicly.
If prosecutors believe he committed a crime, and if they see a probability of conviction, he should be indicted and, when he declines a plea deal, tried — even though it will help him politically, at least in his own party.
Thanks for that. And I did see some reporting to that effect.
Is there possibly any other plausible scenario where said passports might be in play here?
I absolutely believe that the kind of people who vote in GOP primaries are worked up over this. But the number of people who think, “Y’know, I wasn’t planning on voting for Trump in November 2024, but now that the FBI is investigating him for violations of the Espionage Act, he’s looking a lot better” is in the low single digits.
Not the percentage–like, I bet they could all fit in a Kia and have room for their dog.
Let’s see…trump was eating ice cream and spilled some on his desk. The sticky ice cream accidentally glued the passports to the back of the classified nuclear documents that he was in the process of declassifying? That’s all I got.
In my non-lawyer short-answer opinion, not right now.
To elaborate, I’ve never seen passports taken from someone to prevent them fleeing the jurisdiction unless/until they are actually charged. But when if Trump is charged, the charges become part of the consideration for whether the passports should be rendered to prevent a defendant from absconding; that is, is the defendant facing charges that are serious enough to pose a risk of defendant’s flight?
The judge is tasked with imposing conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with additional appearances, but those conditions must be the least restrictive to accomplish that goal. He or she may believe the charges are too serious to grant bail at all, and that would mean taking Trump’s passport would be moot.
Beyond that, I can’t think of how Trump’s passports become an issue.
